[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101008131654.GJ4804@think>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 09:16:54 -0400
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/18] fs: rework icount to be a locked variable
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 10:17:14AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 06:50:01PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > There's no need to lock a normal 32-bit variable for readers.
> >
> > Ok, but will need a memory barrier instead?
>
> Isn't spin_unlock supposed to be one? I'll need some of the locking
> experts to shime in.
Not really a locking expert, but the locking operations are supposed to
have an implicit barrier.
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists